As the US marks its 250th independence anniversary this year, it is a time to remember the story of a nation that has consolidated its position as the most effective power in the international system. However, this celebration coincides with a period of growing questions about Washington's image among its allies, the shifts in its foreign policy, and its alignment with the alliance system it has built over decades.
One of the regions where this questioning is most pronounced is the Gulf countries, which have maintained strategic relations with Washington since the middle of the last century. According to an analysis published by Al Jazeera, while the messages sent by US administrations to their allies have diverged in recent years, there is a palpable 'political reproach' in Gulf capitals.
A historic partnership and moments of rupture
The relationship began with the historic meeting between Founding King Abdulaziz bin Abdulrahman Al Saud and US President Franklin Roosevelt aboard the USS Quincy, and it has been shaped by strategic interests despite changes in administrations and international priorities. Disagreements, such as Saudi Arabia's cooperation with China during the Reagan era, did not touch the core of the alliance.
The US-led international coalition to liberate Kuwait in 1991 reinforced the concept of a security partnership and cemented the belief that Gulf security was part of the highest US interests. This understanding was later reflected in comprehensive defense agreements, the spread of US military bases across the region, and decades of security cooperation mechanisms.
However, in recent years, things have changed. The Gulf crisis that erupted after Donald Trump's first presidential visit to Riyadh left deep scars on the Gulf Cooperation Council's structure and raised questions about the US role in managing disputes among allies.
The second Trump term and military conflict with Iran
Trump's second term began amid a military conflict with Iran, once again putting the region to a difficult test. According to the analysis, the question now being asked with greater urgency is: Does the US still consider the Gulf's security as part of its own strategic security?
This question has started to find its way not only into media and public debate but also, to varying degrees, into official political discourse. In Gulf capitals, there is a prevailing sense that recent military decisions have been made without sufficient consultation with the countries bearing the consequences of escalation in the region. The impression is growing that Israel's security concerns carry more weight in US decision-making than those of its Gulf partners.
This impression is reinforced whenever the speed of providing air defense systems or protection to Israel comes up. In contrast, on the Gulf side, the feeling is growing that regional security has become part of a secondary calculation in conflict management.
The 'acceptable cost' debate
The analysis stresses that this is not an emotional matter but one directly related to the nature of the alliance concept itself. States build their alliances on the basis of reciprocal interests and responsibilities, and on consultation in decisions that directly affect the security of all parties. Therefore, portraying the possibility of Gulf countries being subjected to Iranian attacks as within the 'expected scenario' and presenting the danger to regional countries as an 'acceptable cost' is seen as a discourse whose political implications extend beyond the event itself.
Such a discourse redefines the limits of US commitments to its partners and initiates a legitimate debate about the nature of the security guarantees that have underpinned the relationship for decades.
Iran's alternative narrative and the facts
In response, Iran is trying to present a different narrative. According to Tehran, US military bases in the Gulf have made regional countries targets of Iranian attacks, and these bases have not provided the security they were established for. However, according to the analysis, this narrative falls short when tested against the facts. Iranian attacks took place shortly after the start of military conflict and before it was confirmed that the bases in question were being used in operations.
Moreover, the US military presence is not limited to the Gulf; similar arrangements exist in many countries, most notably at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey. Therefore, attributing the targeting of the Gulf solely to the presence of bases means ignoring Iran's conflict management strategy and the deterrence messages it seeks to convey.
The analysis notes that the presence of military bases is based on agreements signed by sovereign states in line with their own security interests, and that these agreements cannot be reduced to a narrative that seeks to shift the responsibility for Iran's military choices onto others.
The US's internal transformation and its international repercussions
Recent developments are broadening the debate toward the US's own image. Debates in American society over immigration, citizenship, executive powers, and relations with the Supreme Court point to internal transformations that go beyond foreign policy. These transformations raise the question of whether the US is redefining its political model or merely passing through a temporary phase.
US power rested not only on its military and economic capacity but also on its political model and its ability to present itself as a state of institutions governed by stable constitutional rules. Hence, any change in this image is automatically reflected in its international standing and the level of confidence allies have in it.
Not a break, but a search for rebalancing
From the Gulf perspective, the debate is not focused on a desire to distance themselves from the US. That would be inconsistent with both the nature of mutual interests and the deep economic and military intertwinement between the two sides. Gulf countries have massive investments in the US economy, and there is long-standing cooperation in energy, trade, and security. For decades, Gulf countries have played an influential role in stabilizing global oil markets and have often taken decisions that prioritized international economic stability even when these ran counter to their immediate interests.
Therefore, revisiting relations with Washington is not a quest for rupture; it signifies a search for a more balanced formula based on clarity of commitments, respect for mutual interests, and expanding the space for consultation on matters related to regional security. This also means diversifying international partnerships, developing national defense industries, and strengthening regional cooperation. These are options that have become part of Gulf strategic thinking in recent years and will not be limited to the current crisis.
Similar questioning in NATO
One of the striking points in the analysis is that this debate is not unique to the Gulf. Even within NATO, calls to reassess the extent of dependence on the US and to build more autonomous European defense capabilities are growing. If such reassessments are taking place among the countries that form the world's tightest military alliance, it is only natural that the Gulf region is experiencing similar questioning, shaped by national interest calculations, regional security balances, and the rapid transformations in the structure of the international system.
Therefore, the reproach from one ally to another should be interpreted not as a crisis in the relationship, but as an attempt to correct course before the trust gap widens. Alliances that last for decades are built not on political niceties but on frankness and the revision of commitments in light of changing circumstances. This revision seems more necessary than ever as the Middle East enters a new phase where the balance of power is shifting, the nature of threats is changing, and clarity of vision among allies has become a prerequisite for the sustainability of any viable strategic partnership.
